How To Watch The Hunger Games Movies In Order

"The Hunger Games" was a huge deal in the late 2000s, with the book trilogy by Suzanne Collins successfully breaking out of its young adult trappings to become a genuine phenomenon. All three novels became New York Times bestsellers, as did the prequels "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" and "Sunrise on the Reaping," which were released in 2020 and 2025, respectively. The success of the books has been mirrored by the movie franchise, which has taken a whopping $3.3 billion at the box office to date.

If you somehow missed the boat on the movies, or you would just like to revisit the whole "The Hunger Games" saga again, you might be curious about the best way to watch the film adaptations. The debate will always rage about whether it is better to watch the film's in chronological or release order, but if you're interested in seeing the story unfold in the most coherent fashion, this is the correct way to tackle the movies as it stands:

• The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023)

• The Hunger Games (2012)

• The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014)

• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (2015)

Read on to find out more about watching the movies in this particular order and if there are any other ways you can watch them. We'll also take a look at each movie so far in a bit more detail and explore what the future holds for "The Hunger Games" as a film franchise.

Prequels released after the original set of movies often throw a proverbial wrench in the works when it comes to watching an entire franchise. It suddenly opens up more than one way of viewing the films, and many will have their own preferred way of doing this. To get the most complete picture of the entire "The Hunger Games" timeline and follow the story from beginning to end, it is best to watch them in chronological order. This means starting with 2023's "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" and finishing with 2015's "Mockingjay – Part 2."

In a Reddit thread discussing "The Hunger Games," there is some debate on which order is best. For example, u/chairannoyance commented, "I just finished rereading and rewatching the books/movies and did it in the order of The Ballad [of Songbirds & Snakes] and then the trilogy and it was an incredible and interesting way to introduce the story." However, they did caveat this by adding, "I don't know if I'd recommend it that way for someone's first time reading the books or watching the movies."

Why do we recommend doing it this way? Well, starting with the prequel provides some context for the rest of the story and some much-needed history. "The Hunger Games" is predominantly the tale of Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence on the big screen) and her attempts to overthrow the tyrannical regime of President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Watching the prequel before the main trilogy gives viewers a deeper understanding of the captivating history of "The Hunger Games" and Katniss' journey — the more we see of the brutality of the Games, the more impactful Katniss' actions are as the rest of the story unfolds.

The first prequel in the saga that is "The Hunger Games" takes us all the way back to the 10th Games — a whole 64 years before Katniss' story — and introduces us to a young Coriolanus "Coryo" Snow (Tom Blyth). Long before he becomes the tyrannical and manipulative President of Panem, Snow is an ambitious student trying to win a prestigious scholarship. Torn between his connection to the charming Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler) — the tribute he is assigned to mentor — and his desire to restore his family to greatness, there are undoubtedly signs of the man Snow would become.

The benefit of starting with "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" before rewatching "The Hunger Games" is that this is the furthest we've gone back in the story so far, and therefore the most obvious place to begin. It also has the added benefit of providing some context for the man who becomes President Snow, who, like it or not, is a massively important character in the overall story arc.

When we meet Snow in "The Hunger Games," he is a cold-hearted and vindictive man, yet we don't know at that point why he is that way. The fascinating thing about "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" is that it humanizes Snow somewhat — but, crucially, not to the point that we feel sorry for him later on in this series. It shows he was just an ordinary man at one stage, conflicted between following his heart or his head and ultimately not able to shake that unquenchable desire for power above all else.

2012's "The Hunger Games" marks the start of the franchise's transition from page to the big screen. It's important to remember that this existed long before the prequel novels, so for most fans, this was the starting point of the story. You can easily break down the series into the "before Katniss" stories and Katniss' journey, so from here it doesn't make any sense going rogue from the release order of the movies.

Where 2012's "The Hunger Games" succeeds is how successful it is in its world-building and character development — it isn't reliant on a huge exposition dump on all the intricacies of the Capitol and the Games themselves. We embark on this journey with Katniss, and while she sort of knows what the Games entail, we find out the important details along with her. This includes the part that popularity and entertainment play in the Games: It isn't just about brute strength and mind-games, but also about winning over the public — and those crucial sponsors — to your side.

Plenty of other crucial elements are established in this first installment, including the love-triangle of sorts between Katniss, fellow tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), and her long-time friend from District 12, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). It also effectively establishes Katniss as the series' rebellious hero — she's instantly willing to take the place of her younger sister as tribute, yet reticent to follow the rules of the Games. All of this is crucial context (both for Katniss and the wider saga) as the rest of the story unfolds.

Far more than just the bridge between the beginning of Katniss' story and the conclusion, "Catching Fire" presents a cruel and fascinating twist that changes everything. It also has a shocking ending that perfectly sets up the final act of Katniss' tale. After Katniss and Peeta survive their first games, they're living a life of relative luxury and comfort in the Victors' Village in District 12. However, this is short-lived, as the 75th Games — celebrating the third Quarter Quell — will be picking tributes from previous games. Katniss is the only female winner from District 12, so her place is guaranteed, and Peeta — who volunteers in place of the selected Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) — chooses to join her for another battle of survival.

While "Catching Fire" could've risked feeling like déjà vu, it is a completely different beast, adding to the successful world-building of "The Hunger Games" and establishing the early signs of rebellion that prove to be crucial in the "Mockingjay" movies. With the tributes being chosen from the crop of winners, there's no unsuspecting youngsters being flung into the Games this time. These are the best of the best and the ones who have not just experienced the Games before, but beaten them, which makes it harder than ever to succeed. The tributes are not just bigger, better, and stronger, but they're also still dealing with the past traumas they experienced in their own Games, and this manifests in some surprising ways.

It isn't uncommon for successful film franchises based on books to divide their concluding chapter into more than one part. The idealist will say this is to do justice to the story as a whole rather than cutting anything out, but the cynic might say it is a smart business move to eke out even more money from audiences. Regardless of what side you come down on, it was a decision that the people behind "The Hunger Games" took — the book trilogy became a film quadrilogy, with "Mockingjay" being split into two parts.

In "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1," the action picks up almost exactly where "Catching Fire" left things, with Katniss waking up in District 13, the home of the rebellion. While the imminent downfall of the Capitol should be cause for celebration, Katniss is understandably traumatized by the loss of her home district and Peeta's capture by the Capitol. Pressured into being the "mockingjay" — the symbol of the rebellion — Katniss begrudgingly agrees to make propaganda videos to encourage the other districts to support their cause.

It is sometimes the downside of splitting one story into two parts that the first one suffers from being the less interesting installment. It happened with "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" and "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn." While "Mockingjay – Part 1" isn't a bad film, you do feel like you've just watched half a story when the credits roll. You might want to factor this into your watching (or rewatching) plans and carve out time to watch the "Mockingjay" films as one entry, or at least as close together as possible.

Until "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" came out in 2023, "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2" was the final part of the story — and it still is if you're following our suggested order and watching the prequel first. It marks the conclusion of Katniss' story and everything that we have been building up to so far, as the rebels prepare to overthrow the Capitol and put an end to the Games. Fed up of only being the symbol of the rebellion, Katniss insists on joining the war on the frontline, but it is clear that Snow isn't going to go down without a fight. She's joined by Peeta — still fighting the brainwashing he endured from the Capitol to view Katniss as the enemy — along with Gale and Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), another Hunger Games victor from District 4.

"Mockingjay – Part 2" has some truly gut-wrenching moments, particularly for Katniss, who has already endured so much by this point. Right until the very end, the twists keep coming, and it makes for an incredibly satisfying conclusion to the saga. If you're watching the movies in chronological order and starting with "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" as we recommend, it makes the conclusion of "Mockingjay" even more powerful. Looking beyond Katniss' story, watching the films in this order means you have traced President Snow's arc from the moment he chose power over love to the moment his villainous ways come back to bite him. Seeing his tale come to an close in the final scenes of "Mockingjay" means so much more with that additional insight into his character from the prequel.

Watching "The Hunger Games" in chronological order isn't your only option. You may choose to just stick with the order in which they were released, watching the four original "The Hunger Games" movies first before going on to the prequel. There are benefits and drawbacks to this, and your preferred watching order may depend on your familiarity with the series coming into it.

If you're a first-time viewer, then watching the movies in release order may actually be the best way to go. There are some easily-missed Easter eggs in the prequel "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" that you'll perhaps get even more of a kick out of if you have already seen the original quadrilogy. The significance of roses, the Hanging Tree, and even a curtsey that Lucy Gray Baird does in "Songbirds & Snakes" all have much deeper meaning if you've watched "The Hunger Games," so the impact of those may be lost if you choose to start with the prequel. If you're a first-timer and would prefer to tackle the films this way, then here's the order you'll need:

• The Hunger Games (2012)

• The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014)

• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (2015)

• The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023)

Author Lauren Magaziner presented a third option on Threads while talking about the novels, one that may only appeal to superfans. She wrote: "Here's the definitive order on how to read The Hunger Games series: The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay, Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes, Sunrise on the Reaping, The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, Mockingjay. In that exact order, you're welcome." Of course, that can't be applied to the movies, as there's no adaptation of "Sunrise on the Reaping"... yet.

The good news for fans of "The Hunger Games" is that there's another movie on the horizon, with author Suzanne Collins' latest book, 2025's "Sunrise on the Reaping," getting a big screen adaptation. The movie version has already been greenlit, with Deadline reporting that it will have a Fall 2026 release. In terms of where it fits into the story, "Sunrise on the Reaping" is set 24 years before "The Hunger Games," so chronologically it fits in between "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" (which is set 64 years before the first book/film) and "The Hunger Games."

Where "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" focuses on a young Coriolanus Snow, "Sunrise on the Reaping" explores the games that Haymitch Abernathy was a part of — filling in the backstory of another crucial "Hunger Games" character. Haymitch is Katniss' trusted friend and mentor for the games that she is a part of, and she wouldn't have made it out alive without his help. However, he's a broken man by the time we meet him in "The Hunger Games," having turned to alcohol to help numb the pain of his past.

The Games that Haymitch won are a big part of "The Hunger Games" lore, so this should make for a great movie. Speaking to Deadline about the upcoming adaptation of "Sunrise of the Reaping", Lionsgate Motion Picture Group Chair Adam Fogelson said: "We know Hunger Games fans worldwide will be spellbound by where Suzanne has focused this next extraordinary story. The Second Quarter Quell is legendary and looms large over the history of the Games, even into the time of Katniss Everdeen a quarter-century later. Like fans around the globe, we are eagerly anticipating this exciting return to Panem."